Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Pearce (philosopher) (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Petros471 17:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was listed for deletion in 2004 with no consensus, and then rapidly re-listed for deletion but this was prematurely cancled since it was so far after the first call for deletion. The problem with this webpage is non notability. Besides that, if this person is notable, it is probably only because he is one of the most prolific spamdexers ever, with a gigantic amount of self linking domains in his name that for a long time dominated websearches on many topics. You can see his domains here:

http://www.bltc.com/domains.htm

This article is presently a link farm as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laimerpramer (talk • contribs) .

• I'm gonna have to go with a keep for now. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The article has been listed for deletion more than one time, and the result has always been a consensus in favour of keeping it. I am rather appalled that wikipedians are still insisting on having it removed from the encyclopedia. How often is this procedure supposed to take place? Also, please note that the accusation that this person is notable "only because he is one of the most prolific spamdexers ever" is simply preposterous. The work of Pearce has been mentioned on the mainstream media (e.g., The Economist), praised by respected academics (e.g., David Chalmers), and widely discussed on the world wide web. A person is not unworthy of mention just because you haven’t heard of him. Sir Paul 17:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that if it is not kept, it should be merged with the article on the hedonistic imperative.

• Keep - 1. on the grounds that Pearce is indeed notable: he co-founded the World Transhumanist Association, and his internet presence is highly significant in several areas for example psychopharmacology (I recommend some of his essays for my university students). 2. The charge of being a 'spamdexer' is unsubstantiated because untrue - the high rank which Pearce's work often gets in web searches (including Google - which is supposed by now to be largely immune from crude manipulation) should on the contrary be regarded as a measure of its influence.

• This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 18:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Sir Paul. JoshuaZ 00:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.